In this instance, the purists have little to stand on. The prose in which Conan Doyle writes comes from a very 'show, don't tell' angle. That is to say, there is a lot you can interpret from the character of Holmes depending on how you perceive Watson's own perception. To point out the obvious parallels to using tertiary sources as 'solid facts' seems a bit patronising but that's exactly what seems to be happening.

Incidentally, the Richie movies of Holmes are close to the read definition of 're-interpretation'. Quite a difference from 'remake', no names mentioned.

I agree with you 100% actually. The Final Problem is one of my least favorite Conan Doyle stories. Moriarty in that story feels like a sloppy, last-second invention by an author desperate to kill off his main character. I almost sprained something rolling my eyes when I got to the part where Moriarty, at the final showdown, gives Holmes leave to write a 3 page letter explaining everything to Watson. To the degree that Moriarty is an interesting character, it is thanks to the reimagining done by Conan Doyle and others in the decades since Holmes' return. Therefore, yes, any quality use of Moriarty is an improvement on Conan Doyle. And, for exactly the reasons you say, I feel like this is good use of Moriarty.

I like "The Final Problem," but yes, it does seem thrown together:

"Oh Watson, by the way, I haven't mentioned this before, but there's this guy who's been behind most of the crimes that we've been solving lately, and he's been trying to kill me because I'm about to catch him. Oh, and I might have to sacrifice my life in the process of taking him down. Hint hint."

My biggest problem with the story is that Moriarty is supposed to be a very efficient criminal, and yet he apparently gets his henchmen from Emperor Palpatine, because they're about as effective at killing people as stormtroopers. I want Moriarty to feel dangerous, and he rarely does.

For me, the two best Moriartys have been the two most recent ones, Jared Harris in A Game of Shadows and Andrew Scott in Sherlock, because they're the only ones who seemed like they could royally fuck Sherlock's shit up if they wanted to, and they're only holding back a little because Sherlock amuses him.

I actually enjoyed the sequence. I thought it did a good job of playing up Holmes' strengths (having him find the best path to take through the mountains) while getting back to the idea that Holmes has some rather odd blind spots. That was such an intriguing idea--introduced in A Study in Scarlet and later pretty much abandoned by Conan Doyle. I love that in this version, for whatever reason, Holmes has no interest whatsoever in riding a horse for any reason. Totally in sync with Conan Doyle's original conception of the character. And regardless of its faithfulness to Conan Doyle, I thought it was a fun comic sequence illustrating the eccentricities of this Holmes' genius.

I liked this better than the first as well. The only problems I had was that the showdown should have been at the factory (cutting time) and this series never convinces me that it is taking place back in the 1890s for some reason. Did anyone else think that Robert Downey Jr was channeling Heath Ledger in that train scene?

I also felt the movie was about 20 minutes too long, but cutting the end and holding the climax at the factory isn't the solution. I don't want to imagine this movie without the waterfall, and I certainly wouldn't want that fabulous forest chase to be cut. Instead, I would cut a lot of the Sim stuff. He brother was important to the plot, but she sure wasn't. This is one of my few complaints with the Ritchie films; they have no idea what to do with women, and seem to just throw them in whether they have a purpose or not. They should either give them more to do or get rid of them entirely.



I admit that Ritchie's films aren't faithful to their time period at all, either in looks (London looking so dirty is right, but the costumes are almost always wrong) or in social attitudes, but I think it's one of those cases where they care more about making it cool than making it realistic. I'm not complaining.



At one point his make-up gets smeared and he looks like Ledger's Joker, but it never came across in the performance to me.

You forget the Star Trek TNG Daniel Davis Moriarty from Elementary, My Dear Data and the classic Ship in a Bottle.

That was one badass Moriarty. He fricking commandeered a starship!

I wasn't expecting much when I learned that the butler from The Nanny had played Moriarty, but he was indeed very good. Made me wish that he had gotten the chance to play the character in a real Holmes adaptation. Still, I wouldn't put him on the same pedestal as Harris and Scott. He didn't seem all that threatening to me, especially at the end when he goes off to live happily ever after with his sweetheart. The hell was that all about?

I think this all rather enjoyable with Jared Harris particularly good as Moriarty — a gentleman and a supervillain, always a dangerous combination! It's also good to see this Doctor Watson getting more respect as a warrior, a doctor and a student of the Holmes method of detection. It's a shame he lost his limp when having to run to save his life.

More likely goes off to rule the known universe (at least the universe "in a bottle" that he is a part of). I always envisioned him eventually becoming a member of the Q continuum after ditching the annoying Baroness once he found out how tedious she really was.

Yes. I did. With that smudged lipstick, I actually had the thought he would be a perfect Joker replacement. Only recalled it when reading this message board.

Game of Shadows was much more rewarding than the previous installation. The script was good and the villain great. Acting was on a much higher level than previously. Including that visual trick in the final scene was a good last laugh.

I have read all the Sherlock Holmes stories by Doyle, and feel that Richie captured the spirit from those stories, even though Holmes feels more adventurous but just as brilliant in this film.

While the first movie didn't challenge my mind at all, this one was playful with both strategy and tactics. Fun stuff!

While I give "Sherlock Holmes" *1/2, I give "Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows" ***1/2.

A good experience at the movies!